JCF Isn't The Answer

I came to this forum to discuss personality types, and found there was an agenda preceding me. There has been a push against the MBTI and toward a return to cognitive functions.

I believe there are good, logical reasons to be against the MBTI, and I have stated those reasons here on many occasions - pretty much, every chance I get. But if I have any agenda, it is to use reason in solving problems. Compare reason to the whiny badgering of those who believe they have found the Answer in JCF.

Thinking you have found the Answer is not a problem for me. Everybody has their own answer. But that's just it - it's YOUR answer. I will debate with you logically over the validity of your answer. The fact that I only get one-liners and bigotry in return is evidence that your Answer is neither reasonable nor logical. So I often feel like a pet owner walking into a meeting of animal rights activists.

And really, your Answer is not reasonable. Jung was no scientist, he was some kind of modern "Prophet." Logic, as he employed it, was only a tool of some subconscious "reality." And so he created a religion or dogma of the subconscious that is not established in fact. Jung's logic is coherent enough, but it does not correspond to reality.

The main problem with Jung's theory is that he moved from cognitive functions
to personality types without regard to any scientific study whatsoever. Such a "Genius" as Jung apparently didn't need it, all of his Answers came from "somewhere" - God, taking the form of the collective unconsciousness, who has granted him omniscience by whispering into his subconscious "ear." The information came from some vast pool of collected wisdom hovering around somewhere in the aether, waiting for just the right kind of mind to extract the Truths lying therein. The result is merely a cultish following of those who don't dare question the Master.

But these intellectual fads tend to just come and go.

So far I haven't seen anybody who has spiritually profited from JCF. I've seen some dilettantish types hanging around who barely understand the words they are spouting into their keyboards. All I can say to you is that personality typing is not the same as cognitive function typing. And anyway, JCF is very reductionistic. I also know you don't know or care what that term means or what it implies about your rigid mindset.

Personality typing is about the whole character of the person, not these few cognitive functions you can barely manage to identify, if at all. For us, the clues to personality are always external to the person, not hidden in the secret recesses of their minds.

I've noticed a bunch of underlying assumptions and insinuations in your broad case, but I'd like to hear them clarified so as to be sure what your complaints actually are.

Originally Posted by InvisibleJim

Cognitive functions are the bedrock of MBTI; these are not mutually exclusive.

I'd agree with that.

I've visited Socionics a few times and will likely do so again. One of my earlier issues was that there was disagreement on what Socionics was and how it worked, so I had set it aside until things settled out a bit. (I had even run across those who felt like Socionics and facial appearance was correlated, which to me was becoming more like phrenology.)

"Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

“Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

I've noticed a bunch of underlying assumptions and insinuations in your broad case, but I'd like to hear them clarified so as to be sure what your complaints actually are.

I'd agree with that.

I've visited Socionics a few times and will likely do so again. One of my earlier issues was that there was disagreement on what Socionics was and how it worked, so I had set it aside until things settled out a bit. (I had even run across those who felt like Socionics and facial appearance was correlated, which to me was becoming more like phrenology.)

Jim's with the Personality Correct crowd here. I have plonked them all.

I'm looking for simple reason on that side. The fact that there isn't any is, to me, very telling.

True. But it is also the answer. Cognitive functions are the bedrock of MBTI; these are not mutual exclusive. Socionics is better.

Bedrock? Isn't that just a village in the Flintstones? The MBTI is a patchwork of ideas, JCF theory does not by itself imply any four-letter designations. In fact, I was reading over on PersN that the original theory can be used to form 32 types, not just 16.

I guess that prior post was my way of saying, "I'd like to respond, but can't even tell what specific points I would address, and I'm pretty adaptable at deciphering posts. So unless you clarify better what your actual complaint(s) are, you probably won't get much of a response."

here's all I can see:

Complaint #1: Jung operated from an intuitive/mystic interface. Yeah. Not much else to say about it. Here, he created a theoretical framework correlated to his real life observations, but form probably dictated content to some degree. I don't think he ever claimed his theory was "scientific," though, so how can we judge on that merit?

I'm not sure what your other complaints even are.

I know I incorporate function theory into my current understanding of MBTI, which makes sense to me -- function perspective is useful. But both function and MBTI theory can never really "capture" all of a person, it only captures basic shape and form if that. The entire system is contrived and build on certain assumptions; the biggest flaw seems to be reducing people to a handful of discernable parts. Likewise, you can say a car is comprised of an engine, wheels, and a chassis, which might be true; but a car is more than that, and cars can vary tremendously among each other.

"Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

“Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Cognitive faculties and explanations for behavior will never stand their ground in the court of science. That said, theories that endure scrutiny, and theories that resonate with people are those that survive in this field.

Yes, he took a mystical approach. That topic extends into theosophy, theology, and a bunch of other stuff that's completely off the point of JCF.

I can understand mal when he says that he hasn't witnessed anyone undergo significant spiritual growth through JCF. Functions serve as placeholders and rough guides for understanding your individual nature, but of course do not encapsulate it. Jung would say the same, and would advocate that people look deeper than his theories to nourish a better understanding of their own image.

"The entire system is contrived and build on certain assumptions; the biggest flaw seems to be reducing people to a handful of discernable parts." Reductionism is a bad cognitive habit, and I know that Jung would have disagreed strongly with it. (He called it "nothing-but thinking," as in "you're nothing but a handful of cognitive functions.")

My question for the forum is: how am I supposed to read someone's mind in order to gain knowledge of their cognitive functions?
All we have to go on are externalities: style of clothing, manner of speech (e.g., choosing to say "think" instead of "feel," talking more slowly than quickly), and body language. All the evidence has to be tossed into a pile and carefully sorted through. There is no mind-reading.

I've stated the basic assumption of JCF already: Jung asserted that cognitive functions create a certain character. You can read this for yourself in Personality Types. His discussions of the individual types are divided into two distinct parts. The first part discusses the function itself; the second part analyzes the character produced by this function. All I'm saying is that there is no proof that the first part leads to the second.

The basic assumption of the MBTI is, for example, that "Introverted Sensing with Thinking" means ISTJ. Jung's theory never implied it, and I don't see why he would ever have allowed it.